rename_agent_chat_session Rename one of the user's AI assistant chat sessions.
Args:
session_id: The chat session's ID.
title: New title (1-100 chars after strip).
Returns:
{"success": True, "session": {...}} or {"error": "..."}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return envelope shape and the ownership scope ('the user's' sessions), which is useful, but says nothing about what happens on invalid IDs, permission failures, or the effects of replacing an existing title.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args/Returns block with no filler. Slightly docstring-flavored and restates the parameter names, but nothing is padded or wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only two required parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the mutation/safety profile, the definition is nearly complete: it documents both params and discloses the success/error return shape. The remaining gap is behavioral (failure modes, ID discovery), which is minor for a simple rename.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (params only carry generic titles like 'Title' and 'Session Id'), so the description must compensate. It does: session_id is identified as the chat session's ID and title is constrained to 1-100 characters after stripping, which is meaningful validation detail the schema lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (rename) and a specific resource (one of the user's AI assistant chat sessions). It is unmistakable against the sibling chat-session tools (get/list/delete_agent_chat_session), which use different verbs, so no agent would confuse the operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It only implies that the session must already exist and belong to the user; there is no routing advice to related tools such as list_agent_chat_sessions (to find an ID) or delete_agent_chat_session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.